PALATTU MOOSAKOYA Vs. A P AYISHABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.269 of 2009 who are petitioners in I.A.No.1757 of 2010 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff-I, Kozhikode are the petitioners before me challenging Ext.P3, order refusing leave to serve interrogatories on respondents/plaintiffs. The latter filed O.S.No.269 of 2009 for a declaration that document Nos.3348 and 3349 of 2007 in favour of petitioners are void and for other reliefs in respect of the suit property. Respondents claimed title and possession of the suit property as per partition deed No.1438 of 2006. Petitioners disputed that right of respondents as per partition deed No.1438 of 2006 and contended that the said document takes in puramboke land as well. While so petitioners applied for leave as per Ext.P1, to serve interrogatories on respondents. That application was opposed by the respondents vide Ext.P2, objection. Learned Munsiff considered the application and objection and found that it is not necessary to serve interrogatories on respondents. Accordingly the application was dismissed vide Ext.P3, order which is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that document relied on by petitioners takes in puramboke land also and hence, for the purpose of minimizing controversy and for convenience of adducing evidence it was necessary that interrogatories are allowed to be served on the respondents. It is contended that Ext.P3, order requires interference.

(2.) THE first question sought to be answered in interrogatory raised in Ext.P1, application is whether it is as per partition deed No.1438 of 2006 that respondents claim title over the property. In the plaint in paragraph No.4, respondents/plaintiffs have stated about derivation of title and that plaint schedule property belongs to and is in the possession of respondents as it was set apart and allotted to their share as per partition deed No.1438 of 2006. It is also stated that none else including petitioners have any right, title or interest in the said property. In Ext.P2, counter, respondents have asserted the derivation of title as stated in the plaint. THE second question is whether respondents had received any notice from the Revenue Department in respect of puramboke land referred to in partition deed No.1438 of 2006 stating that respondents have no right over that portion of the property. THE third question is whether respondents had surrendered any portion of the property covered by the said partition deed or, they were evicted therefrom. In Ext.P2, counter respondents have stated that nobody else is in possession of property covered by partition deed No.1438 of 2006 and none of them have got any notice from anybody in respect of the property covered by the said partition deed. Learned Munsiff has considered Ext.P2, counter and found that interrogatories are not required to be served. In paragraph No.7 of the order learned Munsiff has referred the case pleaded by the respondents in the plaint that they got the property as per partition deed No.1438 of 2006. THEre is also reference in the impugned order to Ext.P2, counter wherein it is stated that respondents have not received any notice from anybody (regarding any property referred to in the partition deed). It is in the light of that reply also that learned Munsiff thought that it is not necessary to serve interrogatories on respondents. Respondents have stated their case in black and white in the plaint as well as in Ext.P2, counter. In the circumstances I do not consider that it is necessary to serve interrogatories on the respondents. THEre is no illegality or injustice committed by the learned Munsiff requiring interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Writ Petition fails. It is dismissed.